Abstract
This chapter explores different meanings of empowerment by drawing on findings from an empirical case study. The study involved organizational observations and interviews with case managers and clients. In discussing these findings we go beyond technical evaluation questions of whether the case study was achieving its stated aims, to explore how the case was working sociologically and politically towards the creation of self-governing citizens in the name of empowerment. What the study shows is that the empowerment project is not something that can be centrally commanded. It is a concept that gathers meaning in the space of professional/client interactions that involve a mix of therapeutic discourses, ‘gentle coercion’ and social identity work. Discretion plays an important part in these everyday interactions, as it can facilitate trust and legitimacy. At the same time a more collective-based form of empowerment as a means of challenging injustice and inequity at the societal level will require different institutional settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Brodkin, E. (2003). Street level research: Policy at the frontlines. In M. Lennon & T. Corbett (Eds), Policy in action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 145–164). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Clarke, J. (2005). New Labour’s citizens: Activated, empowered, responsibilised, abandoned? Critical Social Policy, 25 (4), 447–463.
Considine, M. (2001). Enterprising state: The public management of welfare to work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Considine, M. Lewis, J.M. O’Sullivan, S. & Sol, E. (2015). Getting welfare to work: Street-level governance in Australia, the UK, and the Netherlands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage.
Fraser, N. & Gordon, L. (1994). A genealogy of dependency: Tracing a keyword of the U.S. welfare state. Journal of Women and Culture in Society, 19(2), 309–336.
Hand, L. (2017). Producing a vision of the self-governing mother: A study of street-level bureaucrat behavior in coproductive interactions. Administration and Society, 50(8), 1–27.
Hupe, P.L. (1993). The politics of implementation: Individual, organizational and political co-production in social services delivery. In: Hill, M. (Ed.), New agendas in the study of the policy process (pp. 130–151). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Ife, J. (2013). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Korteweg, A.C. (2003). Welfare reform and the subject of the working mother: ‘Get a job, then a career’. Theory and Society, 32, 445–480.
Lipsky, M. (1980/2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Maidment, J. & Egan, R. (Ed.) (2009). Practice skills in social work and welfare: More than just common sense (2nd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
McDonald, C. & Marston, G. (2005). Workfare as welfare: Governing unemployment in the advanced liberal state. Critical Social Policy, 84(3), 374–401.
Mead, L. (1997). The New Paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Morgen, S. & Maskovsky, J. (2003). The anthropology of welfare ‘reform’: New perspectives on U.S. urban poverty in the Post-Welfare Era. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 315–338.
Needham, C. (2011) Personalization: From story-line to practice. Social Policy and Administration, 45(1), 54–68.
Pawson, H. (2011). Governing independence and expertise: The business of housing associations. Housing Studies, 26, 301–303.
Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Riccucci, N. (2005). How management matters: Street-level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Shaver S. (2002). Australian welfare reform: From citizenship to supervision. Social Policy and Administration, 36, 331–345.
Soss, J. Fording, R. & Schram, S. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tett, G. (2015). The silo effect. New York: Simon and Schuster.
The Salvation Army (2017). Doorways: Emergency relief handbook. http://www.sarmy.org.au/en/Social/Doorways-Handbook/Introduction/ [accessed 30/03/17].
Thomas, M. & Buckmaster, L. (2010). Paternalism in social policy: When is it justifiable. Research Paper No 8, Canberra, Commonwealth Parliament.
Weeks, K. (2011). The problem with work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Penguin Books.
Young, I. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marston, G., Davidson, D. (2020). Discretion and Empowerment. In: Evans, T., Hupe, P. (eds) Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19565-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19566-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)